1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to a Aran vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the B trokero vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 9, 2013, around 11:37, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same direction and destroyed the lower part of the lower part on the left side while driving the three-lane road in front of the central point of the Gangseo-gu, Seoul Northern Bank.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 185,100 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each branch number, if any), Eul evidence No. 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the evidence and the purport of the oral argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is running in three lanes; the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in two lanes; the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the three lanes; the Plaintiff’s vehicle started to change the two lanes; the Plaintiff’s vehicle signal was changed to the two lanes before the Plaintiff’s vehicle completes the change in the two lanes; the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the two lanes; the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the two lanes thereafter; the signal was changed to the two lanes; the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the two lanes; the signal was changed to the two lanes; and the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the two lanes thereafter; the Defendant’s vehicle is running along as it is, and the Defendant’s vehicle was replaced to the left side of the right side, and it was insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the image of No. 2 and the images of No. 3, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle following the change in the two lanes.